The Glade 4.0

Also, how are pro-life people okay with abortion if it's a rape? The end result is the same, you think a baby is being murdered. Why don't you strictly advocate adoption in those cases? Is it because it's the only scenario in which the mother had no choice? Does that make it okay? Are you getting revenge on the rapist by destroying their legacy?

Except we've molded civilization around these instincts. We used to marry people off right after puberty to deal with the sex thing. Now that this is unacceptable, we need a replacement. Expecting people to "not have sex" is not one.

Couldn't we just agree to disagree on what is "responsible" in this case...

Not all pro-life people ARE ok with it in cases of rape, just like not all are ok with it when the health of the mother is at risk.

This is kind of a gotcha question that has no point other than to show inconsistency at a very shallow level. I could just as easily ask "why is it ok with most pro-choice people to abort a baby but not execute a murderer?" Again, a gotcha question that shows only shallow inconsistency.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Please note I didn't say all pro-life people. Maybe it does seem like a "gotcha" question, but I don't consider it to be a very shallow at all. If someone is pro-life, I really can't see why a woman being raped would be of any consequence to them that the baby should live.

This is pretty much straight up false. There are a bunch of reasons this happened, and most of them have nothing to do with "the sex thing." I wanted to say none of them, but I suppose it may have been a factor in some cases.

Basically as soon as you hit puberty you were considered old enough to be married because you could have kids. This tied families to other families, bolstering support in communities. Some marriages happened to appease a hostile neighbor or to join noble houses. Also, when you were lucky to get to anything resembling old age, it was important to get started on this kind of stuff much earlier than it is now.

Where do you see these abortions happening? I teach every one of their children, and their brothers and sisters all 5 of them while their mother manipulates the system to get our money for all of those kids. Corolinth said it in essence when saying they live off the system, so in the long run maybe they aren't as "unintelligent" as you make them out to be. Free ride and why bother trying to make it better and why bother taking that personal responsibility. I think the ones with the most money the "intelligent" ones are the ones who are keeping it a secret out of their own feelings of moral or shame. Plus, they can afford to keep it under wraps. However that is beside by original thought
The statements above are also replacing your original statement that you are relating animal instinct to have sex to the socioeconomic status of where a human is placed in society. To me, and to Maslow, these are two totally different areas of the pyramid and from the thought of your original idea. The sex drive of a poor man is no less or greater than that of a rich man. That is animal instinct that is that sex-drive. That is like a lion sitting in front of gazelles saying kill, kill, kill. Animal instinct says they don't care just kill. When you throw in Socioeconomic status now you are throwing in thought and choice. MOST, not all, but most people in this country choose their destiny, their socioeconomic status, their fate. That is now taking the lion and sitting it in front of gazelles and it saying, "HHHMMMM too fat, too thin, too old, too slow." Which by what you said before man and for that matter a lion can not do because they have no control over their instinct.

What they also choose is not taking responsibility for the real reason human existence is here. Sorry if your poor, but maybe you should have tried harder, sorry you are dumb, but maybe you should have found something that fits your niche. If they are able to choose their destiny , for the most part in life, then they are intelligent enough to make a conscious decision about having off-spring or to not. If they are poor and know it and aren't responsible enough to make the correct decision about sex, to have it safely or not to have it at all, then **** they get what they get. Their sex-drive was meant for off-spring. Inevitably, if they really are this dumb then they will fall counter to Darwin's theory of Survival of the fittest by not surviving or they live off the flawed system of welfare, which in my opinion should be removed entirely, but that is for another thread another time. Hopefully, they will take themselves out of the gene pool anyway because they are too stupid to make "good decisions." More than likely I hope these people take themselves out before they can procreate, like overdosing or drinking themselves into a alcohol poisoning. I know I sound like a *****, but at least give the off-spring a chance and like scrooge says if the were destined to die "Then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." I know what you are saying about abortion, but that counter acts what Darwin teaches. You are in essence taking away the species before the species has even had a chance to try and survive. You aren't even giving the off-spring the chance to be "survival of the fittest" Which goes against Darwin theories because of evolution and adaption. Children can be more intelligent then their parents and learn from their parents mistakes. I know this may sound sick, but people at least need to be given the chance to live or die based on health or choosing to die of their own free will.



The following is the same sentence above but with my take on it:

Homo sapiens are just animals, and are every bit as "in control" of their actions as a dog in heat. We do what we are programmed to do. Off-Spring is meant to happen.

In essence your original argument states that Homo-sapiens are animals. This I Agree, but then you say that "accidents will happen" If you are arguing the lust of animal like behavior, you in the same sentence can not argue it is an "accident" because that then takes away from the original intent of the sex drive and animal desire. You by saying it is an "accident" gives human beings a sentient concept of the idea that it is an "accident" therefore they are also capable of thinking and reasoning and are able to make conscience decisions to accept the reason they were placed here in the first place and that is to procreate. Meaning accept the results of your choice to have sex even if your so called "accident" happens.

_________________
"None is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe as they are the
ultimate guardians of their own liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Yeah, I'm rehearsing my poker face. I don't handle stupid well. *sigh*" - Farsky

I find it a little hard to believe that you really can't see why not; you're more than intelligent enough. I suggest trying to think from the point of view of a pro-life person - without first strawmanning that position into absurdity. It seems you're pro-choice; I would point out that in any regard, underestimating your opposition is not a good idea.

In any case, let me help you out. Pro-life does not mean "always opposed to abortion under any and all circumstances, and believing it should be banned all the time". That's one possible meaning.

For a person who is a little more moderate however, it means something along the lines of "objectionable, to be avoided and prohibited except in extreme circumstances". Rape is one. The possible death of the mother is another. For this person, there needs to be a reason beyond the difficulties of raising the child, however great they may be, to not raise it. For this person, if you chose to have sex, you chose to become pregnant, by accepting the risk it would happen. In the case of rape, you didn't choose, and it's not just a matter of the inconveniences and difficulties of having a baby; it's that those were foisted upon you by force.

It's quite possible and reasonable to disagree with this position, but it's not as if it's an absurd position to hold.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Seems to me most pro-lifers are so because of a moral objection to the killing of a child. Is that right? I don't think it's absurd at all to expect most people with that belief to be for banning abortions, saying, "Well they can give it up for adoption in 9 months. A life will be saved." regardless of the reason.

You guys are aware that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has an active service mark protection on the phrase "...for the cure" or any reasonable semblance thereof and religiously sues other charities, even small local ones, if they use that phrase? As far I'm concerned, SGK can go die in a **** fire.

_________________

Lenas, if you agree with me on banning abortions for every other cause, I'll agree with you in allowing them for rape. I'm not the only person to espouse that position either. It wouldn't be ideal, but it'd be a compromise worth having. I put some numbers out several arguments back about the very small percentage of abortions for rape and danger to mother.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... asons.html

These stats are admittedly getting a little gray, but in 2004 rape accounts for one percent of all reasons given, another 7 percent for health reasons.

Let's allow all those reasons, call it 10-12 percent and plug that back into PPs own numbers. We'd be looking at around a quarter of a million less abortions by pp and a million nation wide.

Where would they go? There are lots of people who want to adopt newborns (its the older kids that are hard) who would prefer to get then here rather than overseas (because it's difficult to go overseas).

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

How are pro-abortion/pro-choice people okay with the woman not having "the right" to have the baby killed any time prior to cutting the umbilical cord? Why don't you strictly advocate abortion in those cases? Is it because the baby looks like a baby? Does that make it wrong? Are you subjugating a woman to the parasite against her wishes?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

yeah, this is not a binary issue.

For instance, I believe in setting an age of "viability" based on the earliest we have managed to keep a premature baby alive (currently at 21 weeks), and outright banning abortion after that point (except in cases of extreme risk to the mother. No exception for rape, you should have had the procedure earlier, then).

Prior to that, you can do what you wish.


Am I "pro-choice" or "pro-life?"

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You're for life, as you define it. You take a science view of the world that an organism isn't an organism until it can live on its own. It's the one I used to have until I got saved. Our arguments aren't about the goods and ills of abortion, they are about the definition of life. Hence our impasse.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

See, for me, this isn't even an issue of morality. It's an issue of legal consistency.

If the baby was born premature at 22 weeks, and being kept in an incubator with hopes of keeping it alive, and a man walked in and shot the baby in the head, they would be guilty of murder. Why should it matter whether they are being incubated inside the womb or outside? It's the same action.

I also believe it should be fine to induce labor at any point, so long as you take reasonable steps to try to keep the baby alive. If it dies, that isn't killing the child, it's just eviction from the womb.

However, at 20 weeks and earlier, there is basically no chance of incubation, such a premature baby has never survived. Inducing labor alone will kill it. At that point, it doesn't matter whether you induce labor or outright have an abortion, because it is not going to survive either way.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Well then replace "science" with "logic". At least your consistent. Some people want it both ways: abortion on demand and Lacy's law where you can be charged with double murder for killing a pregnant mother.

Also I want to reiterate the stupidity of the "Pro-life" and "Pro-Choice" labels. I'm against abortion on demand.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Talya:

While I almost agree with your argument, I think you (and those who would use the logic you just explained) are just finding a way to justify the terminating of that life. By saying that @ 20 weeks it isn't a life, but at 21 weeks it can be kept alive makes it easier to justify terminating (murdering) the child.

Whether it can survive or not outside the womb is irrelevent. It WILL be a child, a human, a life. No amount of scientific fact will suffice to cloud that. Your solution is just a simple way to classify that life in the mother's womb as something other that can be simply removed as if it was a growth or tumor.

Responsibility should be taken when choosing to have intercourse. Accept what may be a result of that choice. Ending a life because you don't take responsibility for that choice should not be the answer.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

I do believe you are making an unintentional strawman argument. My logic does not rely on whether or not the 20-week baby is a life or not. My logic is simply based on my belief that a woman is under no obligation to let the growing {life, child, baby, lump of cells, parasite, doesn't matter} continue to occupy her womb. However, I also do not believe that gives her the right to simply kill it, either.

Hence,



...very relevant. It determines whether there is any point to attempting to preserve the fetus after eviction.



Not if they don't let it become one. So that's kindof irrelevant, don't you think? Regardless, it's not part of my argument.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

But no child is viable outside the womb without intervention, even a child carried to term requires constant care by a doctor or parent. Do you truly want to quibble on the amount of intervention to determine life?

The other problem with your argument is that on the opposite end of that spectrum you open the euthanasia argument. Can I abort my grandma if she requires a feeding tube? Vent? Etc?

_________________

Actually, the fun thing about my argument is that the age at which a premature baby can be saved continues to drop. Eventually, they'll be able to grow a zygote in an artificial womb, right from conception. My argument will completely eliminate abortion, as science advances.

(Note, however, that prior to implantation, preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is not considered abortion at all. It is simply preventing pregnancy.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That is why Catholics take such a hard stance on birth control. They avoid the slippery slope argument completely.

_________________

...A stance that, as I recall, even the majority of Catholics either ignore or disagree with, (let alone the rest of the world.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

my argument is based on sentience/sapience. Potentiality is not actuality.

That's a little hard to measure isn't it?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

That's fine...but where's the dividing line? At 28 weeks, there's not that much sentience/sapience difference between 3 months after birth. While I'm not philosophically opposed to terminating a bunch of unthinking, unfeeling cells in a vaguely human form, it presents legal and consistency issues that can be debated ad nauseum without anyone being able to present an empirical argument as to a particularly acceptable stage of development. Using the sentience/sapience argument, one could easily set the bar high enough to allow 2 year old children to be killed at will, or limit abortion to well before the current 21 week viability stage.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █